A Provider’s Guide to OIG Exclusions Federal Exclusion Regulations and Enforcement Authorities, and How Providers Can Avoid Risk with Proper Exclusion Screening—Part I

This is the first part of a two-part article.

Legislative Background

Congress initially authorized the use of exclusions as an enforcement tool in the battle against healthcare fraud over 40 years ago with the passage of the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977. The bill granted the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which later became the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the authority to exclude physicians and others convicted of crimes related to Medicare and Medicaid from participating in those programs.(3) In 1981, the Civil Money Penalties Law (Public Law 97-35 [codified at section 1128A of the SSA]) extended the authority to impose penalties to providers that submitted claims for items or services that had been furnished by an excluded entity, and the Secretary of HHS delegated his exclusion authority to its Office of Inspector General (OIG) in 1988 (53 Fed. Reg. 12,993 (April 20, 1988)). The current framework of mandatory and permissive exclusions was then established by the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987.

In 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno declared healthcare fraud to be one of the top priorities of the Department of Justice, second only to violent crime.(4) Shortly thereafter, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Pub. L. 104-191,110 Stat.1936, enacted August 21, 1996) extended the OIG’s exclusion authority to all federal healthcare programs.(5) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub.L.105-33, 111 Stal. 251. enacted August 5, 1997) expanded the OIG’s Civil Money Penalty (CMP) authority to apply to providers that employed or contracted with entities subject to an OIG exclusion. Prior to the passage of the BBA, the OIG could impose penalties only on excluded entities or persons who submitted claims on their behalf. The OIG’s permissive exclusion authorities were expanded in both the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Public Law No: 108-173, enacted December 8, 2003) and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). Initially passed as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Pub. L. No 111-148 (2010), and shortly thereafter amended by the “Health Care and Education Reconcillation Act of 2010,” Pub. L. No. 111-152 (2010), these two pieces of legislation are collectively referred to as the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA).

What is an OIG Exclusion? What is its Impact?

OIG exclusions are final administrative actions that bar individuals and entities from any and all participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal healthcare programs.(6) They are imposed “to protect beneficiaries...stem fraud and abuse...ensure that federal health care programs are protected...and help make sure excluded individuals are not involved in any way in the care of federal program beneficiaries.”(7) Excluded entities are deemed, as a matter of fact and law, to pose unacceptable risks to federal healthcare programs and to the patients they serve.

The effect of an OIG Exclusion is extremely broad. Federal healthcare programs, broadly defined to include “any plan or program,” that provides health benefits directly or indirectly, will not pay for “any items or services” that are “furnished” by an excluded individual or entity, or at the medical direction or on the prescription of an excluded person (see 42 C.F.R. 1001.1901(b), 42 C.F.R. § 1001.10). “Items or services” include any item, device, drug, biological, supply, or service—including management or administrative services; they are “furnished” if provided or supplied, either directly or indirectly, by an individual or entity; and an “indirect claim” is “furnished” even if a nonexcluded provider submits the claim if an excluded entity actually provided the service in the first place.(8)

The “payment prohibition” is a complete payment ban applicable to “all methods of Federal program reimbursement” regardless of whether it is from an itemized claim, cost report, capitated payment, or other bundled payment. It extends beyond direct patient care and includes, for example, services performed by excluded individuals who work for or under an arrangement with a hospital, nursing home, home health agency, or managed care entity where they are separately billed or part of a bundled payment. (See 2013 Special Advisory, at pages 6 and 7.) The following are examples of activities identified by the OIG in the Special Advisory as potentially problematic and susceptible to the imposition of civil money penalties if not properly screened for exclusions:

• Management, administrative, or any leadership roles;

• Surgical support such as the preparation of a surgical tray that indirectly assists in care;

• Claims processing and information technology;

• Providing transportation services with excluded ambulance drivers or even excluded ambulance company dispatchers;

• Selling, delivering, or refilling orders for medical devices or equipment, whether reimbursed directly or indirectly;

• Review of treatment plans, and other support services, whether billed separately or as part of a bundled payment.

Even unpaid volunteers can trigger overpayment and CMP liability if the items or services they furnish are not “wholly unrelated to Federal Health Care Programs” and the provider “does not ensure that an appropriate exclusion screening was performed!” (Emphasis added, 2013 OIG Special Advisory, at 11-12, 16; see also Advisory Opinion No. 18-01.)

The payment prohibition also extends to providers that furnish items or services on the basis of orders or prescriptions they receive from others. Thus, in addition to screening their own employees, vendors, and contractors, providers such as laboratories, imaging centers, and pharmacies “should ensure, at the point of service, that the ordering or prescribing physician is not excluded.” A failure to do so on their part would violate the payment prohibition and could result in both overpayments and CMPs. (2013 Advisory, page 8.)

Types of OIG Exclusions

There are two types of OIG exclusions—Mandatory and Permissive. Mandatory exclusions are identified in Sections 1128(a)(1) – 1128(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (SSA), (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(1)-(4)) and they are imposed as a result of convictions for program fraud, patient abuse and certain drug offenses. Permissive exclusions, on the other hand, are discretionary and can be imposed for broad range of conduct. These are identified in §1128(b)(1)–§1128(b)(16) and §1156 of the Act.(9)

The following figures provide a general breakdown of OIG exclusions over the last five years. Figure 1A illustrates that permissive exclusions based on licensing disciplinary actions and mandatory exclusions based on federal healthcare fraud convictions accounted for over 75% of all exclusions during this period (41% and 35%, respectively). Figure 1B illustrates that mandatory exclusions accounted for 55% of all exclusions.

Figure 1. A, All Exclusions 2013-2017. B, Percentage breakdown of Exclusions.

Figure 2 breaks down exclusions by “specialty” as labeled by the OIG in the LEIE postings.(10) The agency does not, however, ascribe a specialty in each case. It shows that nurses, nurse aides, personal care providers, home healthcare aides, and physicians account for almost two-thirds of all exclusions over the last five years. Taken together, these figures demonstrate the OIG’s dual focus on patient safety and program integrity.

Figure 2. A, All Exclusions by Specialty. B, Percentage Breakdown by Specialty.

Mandatory Exclusions

Sections 1128(a)1-(a4) of the Social Security Act identify the four legal bases that warrant the imposition of a mandatory exclusion by the Office of Inspector General:

• 1128(a)(1): Conviction related to the delivery of an item or services to a Federal or State Health Care Program;

• 1128(a)(2): Conviction under State or Federal law relating to neglect or abuse of patients in connection with the delivery of a healthcare item or service;

• 1128(a)(3): Felony conviction relating to healthcare fraud program (other than Medicare or Medicaid); and

• 1128(a)(4): Felony conviction relating to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance.

It is important to note that although a mandatory exclusion under sections 1128(a)(1) and (a)(2) must be based on a “conviction,” the term is extremely broadly defined. “Nolo contendere” pleas, for example, qualify as convictions under this section; even dispositions under first offender programs and deferred adjudications—programs where no finding of guilt is ever entered—satisfy the conviction requirement for purposes of the Act. In addition, Section 1128 is satisfied by an action that takes place in any “State, Federal or Local Court.” (See §§ 1128(i)(1) - (i)(4) of the Social Security Act.) Thus, it has been held that a deferred prosecution agreement in a local court for misdemeanor theft is a sufficient basis for the imposition of a mandatory exclusion under (a)(1) because it was related to Medicaid services. (Department of Health and Human Service, Departmental Appeals Board Civil Remedies Division, Okwilagwe v. The Office of Inspector General, Docket No. C-13-322, Decision No. CR2920, September 6, 2013.) The same standards would apply to exclusions under (a)(2).

Mandatory exclusions be must be imposed for at least five years; however, they are often imposed for much longer periods if warranted by the underlying facts and circumstances. Once a mandatory exclusion is imposed, the person must wait at least five years before applying for reinstatement if this is his or her first exclusion, but 10 years must pass before reinstatement may be sought after a second mandatory exclusion, and a third mandatory exclusion is permanent. If the OIG seeks to impose a mandatory exclusion, the only viable defense that can be raised is the length of the exclusion is subject to challenge. (42 C.F.R. 402.214.)

Finally, it is worth noting that the “balance” of mandatory to permissive exclusions appears to be changing. The current composition of all exclusions on the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) is 47% mandatory and 53% permissive, but Figure 1B shows us that during the period 2013 to 2017 the percentages essentially switched as mandatory exclusions increased from 47% to 55%. And in 2017 the mandatory exclusions increased to almost 63% of all exclusions.(11 )Although these data are relatively new and there is no ready explanation for the change, it is a trend worth watching.

Permissive Exclusions

The OIG’s permissive exclusion authority has been expanded a number of times over the years, and the imposition of permissive OIG exclusions includes convictions for obstructing healthcare investigations and/or audits, improper certification for items or services, and making false statements or misrepresentations in applications to participate in Medicare.(12) Table 1 presents the permissive exclusions as found on the OIG website (13).

Unlike its mandatory exclusion authority, which is imposed when specific convictions occur, the OIG has the discretion to impose permissive exclusions over a wide range of conduct (or misconduct). OIG guidance on the implementation of its permissive exclusion authority begins with a presumption favoring exclusion under certain circumstances. The guidance outlines a “compliance risk spectrum” that is based on the risks posed to patients and to federal healthcare programs (Figure 3). The factors to be considered include a company’s underlying conduct during the investigation, in addition to current and historical compliance efforts.(14) The OIG also issued specific guidance with respect to the imposition of permissive exclusions based on an excluded individual’s ongoing role or interest in a company.(15)

Figure 3. Compliance risk spectrum.

Although the OIG is authorized to impose permissive exclusions over a wide range of conduct, Figure 4 shows that the agency actually invokes its permissive exclusion authority over a narrow range of persons and limited circumstances. For example, Figure 4A shows that nurses and nurse aides account for approximately 70% of all permissive exclusions, with “other licensed professionals” (mostly therapists, midlevel providers and counselors) and physicians accounting for 16% and 9%, respectively. As direct caregivers, particularly nurses and nurses aides but also mid-levels and therapists are the persons in the best positions to impact both patient care and claims arising from that care. It is not surprising that they account for the vast majority of permissive exclusions. However, it is somewhat surprising that business owners account for only 3% of all permissive exclusions.

Figure 4. A, Entities Subject to Permissive Exclusions 2013-2017. B, Percentage Breakdown of Permissive Exclusions.

As seen in Figure 5, despite the many permissive exclusion options available to the OIG, most of the permissive exclusions it has imposed over the last five years (a surprisingly high 90%) were based on final disciplinary actions such as license suspensions and revocations that had been taken by a State licensing board. The only other measurable bases were healthcare fraud misdemeanors, State exclusions, fraud or kickbacks, and defaults on student loans—none of which accounted for more than 3% of the permissive exclusions imposed.

Figure 5. All Permissive Exclusions by Basis (2013-2107).

Process, Finality, and Appeal Rights for OIG Exclusions

The process of imposing and appealing an exclusion is governed by 42 C.F.R. §§ 1001.2001-1001.2007. When the OIG seeks to impose a mandatory exclusion, it may initiate the process by sending the party a Notice of Intent to Exclude, which identifies the basis for the proposed exclusion, describes the potential effect of an exclusion, and gives the individual or entity 30 days to respond in writing with relevant information or evidence. There is no provision for a hearing at this stage in a mandatory exclusion. In fact, the OIG can skip the Notice of Intent when seeking a mandatory exclusion and begin the process with a “Notice of Exclusion.” This must include the basis and length of the exclusion, the earliest reinstatement date, the requirements for reinstatement, and the excluded party’s appeal rights. When the OIG seeks a permissive exclusion, in most instances it begins the process with a “Notice of Intent to Exclude.” However, if the OIG seeks to exclude based on something other than an underlying final determination (such as a license revocation or State exclusion action), the process may include a Notice of Proposal to Exclude.

Exclusions may be appealed first to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), then to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), and then to a United States District Court. However, appeals of exclusions are limited to two issues: (1) whether the OIG had a “basis for the imposition of the sanction”; and (2) whether the length of the exclusion is unreasonable (42 C.F.R. 402.214). In addition, an ALJ considering these issues is prohibited from reviewing the “exercise of discretion” by the OIG 42 C.F.R. § 1005.4(c)(7), and if the sanction is based on a “prior determination,” the underlying basis may not be attacked if a “final decision was made.” § 1001.2007(d). As a result, most exclusion appeals, particularly those of mandatory exclusions, are focused on the length of the exclusion.

Mandatory exclusions are final 20 days after the Notice of Exclusion. They are not stayed pending the outcome of the appeal upon finality. The OIG posts the exclusion on the LEIE, and it sends notices of the exclusion to various State and Federal interests, including, but not limited to, State licensing boards, State health programs, medical societies, Medicaid fraud control units, and the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Enforcement Tools for Exclusion Violations

Exclusion Violations are actions taken by an individual or entity in contravention of the “payment prohibition” as defined in 42 C.F.R. § 1001.1901, and the authority to impose CMPs and assessments is delegated by the Secretary to the OIG pursuant to 42 CFR § 1003.150. The specific exclusion violations for which the OIG has the authority to impose civil money penalties and assessments are presented in Table 2.

Most of the exclusion cases pursued by the OIG have been for violations of § 1003.200(b)(4)—employing or contracting with an individual or entity. Recently, however, the OIG has been actively investigating and pursuing cases involving the ordering and prescribing of medicine from excluded persons. 42 C.F.R. § 1003.200(b)(6). Investigations involving the direct submission of a large number of claims by an excluded person (such as an excluded physician continuing to practice medicine and submit claims in violation of § 1003.200(a)(3)), or the retention of ownership or control through fraudulent representations in violation of § 1003.200(b)(3)) are fewer in number, and those that have been reported typically have resulted in criminal and/or False Claims Act resolutions. To date, there have been few, if any, enforcement actions involving MCOs, Medicare Advantage (MA) or Part D contracting organizations that have been reported.

Civil Money Penalties for Exclusion Violations

CMPs are “remedial measures designed to protect the Federal health care programs from any person whose continued participation in the programs constitutes a risk to the programs and their beneficiaries,”(16) designed to protect program integrity and patient safety. They are the favored weapon of the OIG in its enforcement of exclusion violations. As stated in the 2016 final rule amending CMP authorities and incorporating new ones: “The CMP authorities in this part, as a general matter, aim to redress fraud on Federal healthcare programs by recovering funds, protecting the programs and beneficiaries from untrustworthy providers and suppliers, and deterring improper conduct by others. Accordingly, it is highly relevant if the conduct put beneficiaries at risk of patient harm.”(17)

Table 3 identifies the OIG’s CMP authority for each exclusion violation.(18) As can be seen, the OIG may impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for each individual violation of § 1003.200(a)(3) and § 1003.200(b)(6); up to $10,000 for each day § 1003.210(b)(3) is violated; and up to $10,000 for each item or service provided, furnished, ordered, or prescribed in violation of § 1003.200(b)(4). MCOs, MA, and Part D contracting organizations that employ or contract with excluded persons or entities face a penalty of $25,000 for each offense.(19)

Assessment Authority of the OIG for Exclusion Violations

In addition to its authority to impose CMPs, the OIG also is authorized to impose assessments for OIG exclusion violations. Assessments differ from CMPs in that they are not considered to be sanctions; instead, they may be imposed “in lieu of damages sustained by the Department or the State agency because of the violation.” 42 C.F.R. § 1003.130. That is, assessments act as a proxy for damages presumed to have been sustained by either the Federal or State agency as a consequence of the violation, and the OIG is specifically authorized to impose them in exclusion violations in 42 C.F.R. § 1003.210 and § 1003.410. Section 1129 of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 1320a–8(a)(1)]. Because assessments are considered to be a form of restitution and not a penalty or sanction, the OIG theoretically could impose both a CMP and an assessment for an exclusion violation. Table 4 shows the assessment amounts the OIG is authorized to impose for exclusion violations.

The assessment provisions for employing or contracting with excluded individuals recently were amended in an effort to recognize the difference in effect between exclusions involving direct billers (such as a doctor) and those involving persons that provide support services not directly billed (such as an aide).(21) The amended assessment regulations permit an assessment to be as much as three times the amount of each service billed for employing or contracting with a person who provides directly billable services, whereas the assessment for persons that provide a “non-separately-billable” service is limited to three times the amount of the costs associated with that individual. As will be discussed later, this is consistent with the methodology of calculating the federal “loss” in self-disclosures involving exclusion violations.

Factors in Imposing Penalties and Assessments

When considering the imposition of penalties and assessments, the OIG considers the nature and circumstances of the violation, the degree of culpability of the individual being assessed, the history of prior offenses, other wrongful conduct (if any), and any other matters the OIG deems relevant to its determination. 42 C.F.R. § 1004.140(a). Relevant mitigating and aggravating factors contained in the regulation and discussed in subsequent OIG guidance include the following(22):

• Mitigating factors

  • If the length of time was short and the amount claimed was less than $5,000.

• Aggravating circumstances

  • There were several violations, or a pattern, over a lengthy period of time;

  • The ownership, control, or responsibility implicated §1003.200(b)(3);

  • The amount claimed or requested for such items was $50,000 or more;

  • The violation caused or could have caused, adverse patient consequences.

Appeal Rights for Civil Money Penalties and Assessments

The appeal rights of parties with respect to CMPs and assessments are found in 42 C.F.R. § 1005 et seq. Parties have the right to request a hearing before an ALJ to challenge the imposition of penalties and assessments if they make a written request within 60 days of receiving notice of the sanction. The process allows for representation by counsel, discovery rights, the right to present and cross examine witnesses, a hearing, and the right to present oral and written arguments to the ALJ. The ALJ has full authority over the pre-hearing process and the hearing itself. However, the ALJ does not have the authority to compel negotiations, enjoin the Secretary in any way, invalidate existing regulations, or refuse to follow them. The ALJ also is not permitted to review the exercise of discretion by the OIG to impose a CMP or assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ issues an “initial decision,” which includes findings of fact and conclusions of law in which he or she may increase or reduce penalties and assessments.

An Initial Decision can be appealed to the DAB; a timely appeal stays the imposition of a CMP. The DAB has broad authority in the manner in which it handles the appeal. It can decline to review the case; increase, reduce, or remand a penalty or assessment determined by the ALJ; or remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of additional evidence. The decision of the DAB is final 60 days from issuance unless it involves a remand, and the parties have the right to appeal the DAB ruling to federal district court. A stay of the imposition of a CMP may be requested during the federal appeal process. However, the request goes to the ALJ who imposed the penalty in the first instance, and the ALJ is not authorized to grant the stay unless a bond or other security is posted.

Potential Overpayment and False Claims Act Liability for Exclusion Violations

Providers have the burden of ensuring that they comply with exclusion-related regulations and that they do not employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity. Those that fail in this obligation are at risk for overpayment liability, regardless of whether they have actual knowledge of the person’s status at the time of their transaction. As the OIG states: “If a hospital contracts with a staffing agency for temporary or per diem nurses, the hospital will be subject to overpayment liability ... if the nurse furnishes items or services reimbursed by a federal health care program. 2013 Special Advisory, at 15.

“Regardless of whether and by whom screening is performed ... the provider is subject to overpayment ... [and] CMP liability if the provider does not ensure that appropriate exclusion screening was performed” (Updated special advisory, pg 16).

Exclusion violations also can give rise to potential False Claims Act liability under the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) and the ACA.(23) FERA expands the scope of “reverse false claims” liability under the False Claims Act by making the retention of an “obligation” to the government a false claim, and the ACA specifically states that retained overpayments are legal obligations under FERA. Thus, since providers “know” they have a legal obligation to ensure compliance with exclusion regulations and that overpayments result from exclusion violations, any failure of compliance that results in an overpayment may be viewed as the result of conduct that constituted a “reckless disregard” or a “deliberate ignorance” of the rules—and that therefore violated the FCA.

Part II of this article will cover the following topics: Enforcement of OIG Exclusion Violations, Avoiding Civil Money Penalties and Overpayment Liability, The Screening Process, Self-Disclosing Exclusion Violations, Reinstatement and Waivers.

About the Author

Paul Weidenfeld is a former federal healthcare fraud prosecutor and Department of Justice National Health Care Fraud Coordinator. His principle area of practice is healthcare fraud and abuse and the Federal False Claims Act, and he has represented providers and individuals in healthcare matters since leaving government in 2006. He is currently “Of Counsel” to the firm of Liles Parker. Mr. Weidenfeld also has an extensive litigation background that includes numerous trials and appeals and appearances before the United States Supreme Court, the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Louisiana Supreme Court. He has received recognition both as a prosecutor and as defense counsel and has been the recipient of numerous awards. These include Nightingale’s Outstanding Healthcare Litigators, the Attorney General Award for Fraud Prevention, the Office of Inspector General Cooperative Achievement Award, and the National “Case of the Year” honors by the NHCAA. In 2014, Mr. Weidenfeld cofounded Exclusion Screening, LLC. Exclusion Screening helps providers navigate the difficulties and issues related to the screening for excluded individual and entities, and along the way he has become one of the foremost experts in the field of OIG Exclusions and Exclusion-related issues.

References and End Notes

1. “OIG” in this paper refers to Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services unless otherwise stated. The term “OIG exclusion” is used as shorthand for an administrative action taken by the OIG barring an individual or entity from participating in Federal healthcare programs pursuant to §1128(a)(1)-(4), (b)(1)-(b)(16) or §1156 of the Social Security Act (SSA).

2. This article focuses on exclusions from a regulatory and enforcement perspective, but exclusions also play a critical role in compliance and risk management programs. See, e.g., HCCA, Measuring Compliance Program Effectiveness: A Resource Guide (Jan. 2017) (guidance reconfigures the traditional “Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance Program” and makes the “Screening and Evaluation of Employees, Physicians, Vendors and other Agents” an element unto itself – or the new “Seventh Element of Compliance”). Available at https://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/compliance/101/files/HCCA-OIG-Resource-Guide.pdf.

3. The Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977, Public Law 95-142. In 1979, the Department of Health Education and Welfare was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

4. See e.g. Crackdown on Health Care Fraud, www.nytimes.com/1995/12/22/us/in-crackdown-on-health-care-fraud-us-focuses-on-training-hospitals-and-clinics.html .

5. In addition to establishing the principle of insurance portability, HIPAA contains several provisions related to healthcare fraud enforcement, including containing legislation that significantly increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to obtain and share information and establishing the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Fund (HCFAC) as a permanent funding source specifically designated for healthcare fraud enforcement.

6. The effect of an OIG exclusion is addressed in the Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effects of Exclusion from Federal Health Care Programs, issued September 2, 1999, and in the Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusions from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs, issued May 8, 2013. Hereinafter, the initial advisory will be referred to as the “1999 Special Advisory” and the update will be referred to as the “Updated Special Advisory” or the “2013 Special Advisory.” The 1999 Special Advisory can be found at: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/alertsandbulletins/effected.htm ; the 2013 Updated Special Advisory can be found at https://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/files/sab-05092013.pdf .

7. Inspector General June Gibbs Brown, in the press release for the 1999 Special Advisory.

8. See 42 C.F.R. § 1001.10. Definitional changes were made to direct and indirect claims pursuant to rulemaking authority granted to the OIG in the MMA and the ACA; See also, OIG Advisory Opinion No. 18-01 at 5 (Feb. 20, 2018) available at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/advisoryopinions/2018/AdvOpn18-01.pdf .

9. The data in the figures in this section come from exclusion data reported in the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) by calendar year.

10. The data in the figures are derived from the exclusion data reported in the OIG’s List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE).

11. These calculations are based on the composition of the LEIE through December 31, 2017.

12. See Sections 1128(c)(3)(G)(i) and (G)ii of the SSA. See also 82 Fed. Reg. 4100.

13. See https://oig.hhs.gov

14. See Criteria for implementing section 1128(b)(7) exclusion authority (April 18, 2016), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/files/1128b7exclusion-criteria.pdf . The OIG breaks these down into “high risk factors,” “low risk factors,” and factors that have “no effect.” High risk factors include the impact on beneficiaries, cooperation, and whether an adverse licensing action occurred. “Lower risk” factors include acceptance of responsibility and self-disclosure. Factors that are “expected,” and thus have “no effect,” are cooperation in the investigation and having a compliance plan with the seven elements of compliance.

15. See Guidance for the Implementation of its Permissive Exclusion Authority Under Section 1128(b)(15) at 1, available at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/exclusions/files/permissive_excl_under_1128b15_10192010.pdf . The guidance was issued because 1128(b)(15) provides for exclusion based whether the individual in question is either an owner or an officer or a managing employee and the analysis is different for each.

16. Criteria for implementing section 1128(b)(7) exclusion authority (April 18, 2016), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/files/1128b7exclusion-criteria.pdf . See also 81 Fed. Reg. 88, 334 (Dec. 7, 2016): “In 1981, Congress enacted the CMPL, section 1128A of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7a), as one of several administrative remedies to combat fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.”

17. 81 Fed. Reg. 88346.

18. This is a listing of the CMP authorities related to exclusion violations. A complete listing of the OIG’s CMP authorities can be found on the OIG’s website, or at 42 C.F.R. § 1003.210.

19. The OIG also may impose a penalty or, when applicable, an assessment, against a Medicare Advantage or Part D contracting organization with a contract under section 1857 or 1860D-12 of the SSA if any of its employees, agents, or contracting providers violate § 1003.400(a) - (d). However, the amounts are not listed.

20. The penalty amounts for CMPs and assessments are updated annually and are published at 45 C.F.R. § 102.

21. A discussion of the change is found in 81 Fed. Reg. 88, 334 (Dec. 7, 2016).

22. See 42 CFR § 1004.140(c); see also Criteria for implementing section 1128(b)(7) exclusion authority (April 18, 2016), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/files/1128b7exclusion-criteria.pdf .

23. See § 3729(a)(1) of the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009 and § 6401of the Affordable Care Act (2010).